Elite Dangerous Ship Jump Range Comparison With Respect to The New CG's FSDs

Tiron Elite · Nov 6, 2021

o7 Commanders!

I've taken the time to build on CMDR Boombi's work by inter comparing EVERY ships' jump range with respect to the new FSDs released by the current CG.

The link to my sheet can be found here: Jump Range Comparison Sheet

I first used Coriolis to find a maximized jump range for each of the ships using the tool's presets. I then augmented these values with engineering and then an FSD booster. Appropriate FSD experimental effects were applied to fit conventions. Finally, thanks to some kind feedback, I tweaked each FSD to accommodate the +15% optimal mass of the new FSDs. Links are provided for all ship builds.

A preliminary inspection of the data shows the new FSDs add a roughly 12% increase to the jump range of applicable ships.

What I find remarkable about this information is how the meta is changed with these new FSDs.
Not max ranges, but the middle, such as the laden ranges of the truckers and what this means towards the pathway through engineering.

Please reply to this post with discussions, comments, and concerns.

See you in the Black commanders!

SteveZissou · Nov 7, 2021

thanks great post

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Pretty sure at least the numbers for the c5 FSD are wrong.

I have an optimal mass of 1856 with the c5 FSD, not 1946.

The +15% goes to the base value, not cumulative with the increased range iirc.

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

To elaborate on this, the formula should be as below:

base optimal mass * 1,x+y *1,z

where x is the value of the increased range, y is the value of the faster boot and z is the mass manager, which is applied later.

So the values should be:

c3A 150 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 265,2
c4A 525 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 928,2
c5A 1050 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 1856,4
c6A 1800 optimal mass * 1,7 *1,04 = 3182,4

WILLIAM BILL ADAMA · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
To elaborate on this, the formula should be as below:

base optimal mass * 1,x+y *1,z

where x is the value of the increased range, y is the value of the faster boot and z is the mass manager, which is applied later.

So the values should be:

c3A 150 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 265,2
c4A 525 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 928,2
c5A 1050 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 1856,4
c6A 1800 optimal mass * 1,7 *1,04 = 3182,4

My calculation is same to you.

forbiddenlake · Nov 7, 2021

Yes, BigMaec is correct. @Tiron Elite sorry but your entire special column is wrong

Rubbernuke · Nov 7, 2021

I said this with the first x2 engineered FSD but now it means there is less need to go to Farseer right off the bat so Deciat won't need to be the log jam spank zone.

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Rubbernuke said:
I said this with the first x2 engineered FSD but now it means there is less need to go to Farseer right off the bat so Deciat won't need to be the log jam spank zone.

Still need an engineer to apply mass manager. And that's usually Felicity, because Elvira doesn't exist.

Rubbernuke · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
Still need an engineer to apply mass manager. And that's usually Felicity, because Elvira doesn't exist.

True, but even in the 'raw' state its way, way beyond a stock FSD when you start out.

Exterminatus93 · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
To elaborate on this, the formula should be as below:

base optimal mass * 1,x+y *1,z

where x is the value of the increased range, y is the value of the faster boot and z is the mass manager, which is applied later.

So the values should be:

c3A 150 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 265,2
c4A 525 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 928,2
c5A 1050 optimal mass *1,7 *1,04 = 1856,4
c6A 1800 optimal mass * 1,7 *1,04 = 3182,4

Strange, I get different results:

1800 base

2790 g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+990t)

2070 g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+270t)

2901,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+111,6t) (+1101,60t)

2901,60+270=3171,60t

90,78LY

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Exterminatus93 said:
Strange, I get different results:

1800 base

2790 g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+990t)

2070 g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+270t)

2901,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+111,6t) (+1101,60t)

2901,60+270=3171,60t

90,78LY

Do this calc you did for the c5 one...

Exterminatus93 · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
Do this calc you did for the c5 one...

I do not understand your message

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Exterminatus93 said:
I do not understand your message

I would like to see your calculation for the class 5A FSD, because my calculation gives the correct optimal mass.
If you apply your calculation to the base class 5A you will see the number differs from the real optimal mass.

Exterminatus93 · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
I would like to see your calculation for the class 5A FSD, because my calculation gives the correct optimal mass.
If you apply your calculation to the base class 5A you will see the number differs from the real optimal mass.

1050t base

1628t g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+578t)

1208t g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+158t)

1692,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+64,6) (+642,60t)

1692,60+158=1850,60t Optimal Mass

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Exterminatus93 said:
1050t base

1628t g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+578t)

1208t g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+158t)

1692,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+64,6) (+642,60t)

1692,60+158=1850,60t Optimal Mass

increased range +55% = 577,5

faster boot sequence +15 % (on the base optimal mass) = 157,5

v1 Fsd = 1050 + 577,5 +157,5 = 1785

+ Mass manager 4% = 1856,4

Exterminatus93 · Nov 7, 2021

@Bigmaec
My mistake was to write down the data of the module, not in the precise details, here is my correction:

5A FSD:

1050t base

1627,50t g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+577,5t)

1207,50t g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+157,5t)

1692,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+65,1) (+642,60t)

1692,60+157,5=1850,20t Optimal Mass

Bigmaec · Nov 7, 2021

Exterminatus93 said:
@Bigmaec
My mistake was to write down the data of the module, not in the precise details, here is my correction:

5A FSD:

1050t base

1627,50t g5 Increased Range without Experimental effect (+577,5t)

1207,50t g5 Faster Boot Sequence whinout Experimental effect (+157,5t)

1692,60 g5 Increased Range+Mass Manager (+65,1) (+642,60t)

1692,60+157,5=1850,20t Optimal Mass

You're adding the mass manager to the increased range, which is wrong for whatever reason with the c5 FSD.

It first applies both blueprints and then applies mass manager

Exterminatus93 · Nov 7, 2021

Bigmaec said:
+ Mass manager 4% = 1856,4

Bigmaec said:
You're adding the mass manager to the increased range, which is wrong for whatever reason with the c5 FSD.

It first applies both blueprints and then applies mass manager

The order of the factors does not alter the product

Mass manager add 6,2% not 4%

Mersozz · Nov 7, 2021

So, if I currently have a G5 (increased jump + mass manager) FSD already installed, and I someday get my hands on this CG version, generally speaking what's my net improvement? I understand there will be variance by ship and module size, I'm just trying to figure out if it's worth me checking out in the future.

In my case, my favorite flyer is a DBS, and I'm getting 40+ Ly per jump, fully equipped (hardpoints, utilities, and optionals)

I'm not normally this lazy, but I'm multitasking right now (making chili for football later)....

Screemonster · Nov 7, 2021

Rubbernuke said:
I said this with the first x2 engineered FSD but now it means there is less need to go to Farseer right off the bat so Deciat won't need to be the log jam spank zone.

new players don't get told about the tech brokers in their inboxes though